Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, anyone can file a complaint alleging
a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability.

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364
establishes a process by which any person can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of
the courts" or has become, by reason of a mental or physical disability, "unable to discharge all the duties" of the judicial office.

The judicial conduct and disability review process cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a judge’s decision in a case. A judicial decision that is unfavorable
to a litigant does not alone establish misconduct or a disability. An attorney can explain any rights you have as a litigant to seek review of a judicial decision.

Judicial Conduct & Disability - US Eleventh Circuit COA

Codes of Conduct and related sources of authority provide standards of behavior for judges and others in the federal court family. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act allows complaints alleging that a federal judge
has engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts" or has become, by reason of a temporary or permanent condition, "unable to discharge
the duties" of the judicial office.

Congress has created a procedure that permits any person to file a complaint in the courts about the behavior of federal judges—but not about the decisions federal
judges make in deciding cases. Below is a link to the rules that explain what may be complained about, who may be complained about, where to file a complaint, and how the complaint will be processed.
There is also a link to the form you may use.

Almost all complaints in recent years have been dismissed because they do not follow the law about such complaints. The law says that complaints about judges’
decisions and complaints with no evidence to support them must be dismissed. If you are a litigant in a case and believe the judge made a wrong decision—even a very wrong decision—you may not use
this procedure to complain about the decision. An attorney can explain the rights you have as a litigant to seek review of a judicial decision.

Addendum Three(Rules for Judicial-Conduct and
Judicial-Disability Proceedings adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, with Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules) (9/15)

Final Orders on Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability - US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Addendum Three (Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States with Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules) 9-15RulesAddendum03MAY16.pdfAdobe Acrobat document [293.1 KB]

A judicial misconduct or disability complaint against a federal judge must be filed in the appropriate court office, as described in Rule 7 of the Rules for
Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Please visit the website of the appropriate court office for additional information.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, led by Chief Justice John Roberts (right) and comprising some of the nation’s top federal judges, is meeting in D.C. for
its semiannual summit, yet scant information about the roles and responsibilities of this body, the composition of its committees or the work it was planning to accomplish has been released
publicly.

"The judges who sit on the Judicial Conference are tasked with making important decisions on federal judiciary policy, from rules of evidence and civil procedure to
directives on travel and codes of conduct," Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth said. "Yet there is no online database of all of the committees, their roles and who sits on
them, and it is nearly impossible to locate their work on various matters until months after the fact, if at all."Read more

Judicial Conference of the United States - US Courts

The Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policy-making body for the federal courts. The current name took effect when Congress enacted Section 331 of Title 28 of the United States Code. Before that, the body was known as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges from
its creation in 1922.Read more

The Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policy-making body for the federal courts.

Membership

The Chief Justice of the United States is the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference. Membership is comprised of the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the
Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit.

The Judicial Conference of the United States today approved two policies aimed at aiding and enhancing judges' compliance with established ethical
obligations.

The Conference voted to require all federal courts to useconflict-checking computer software to identify cases in which judges may have a financial conflict of
interest and should disqualify themselves. It also approved a new policy requiring greater disclosure by both those who provide privately funded educational programs for judges and the judges who
attend such programs.

A number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure and official bankruptcy forms became effective December 1, 2014. The changes to the Federal Rules
follow recommendations by the Judicial Conference of the United States, review by the Supreme Court, and consideration by Congress. The amendments affect the Appellate, Civil, Criminal, Bankruptcy
and Evidence Rules.

The Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure govern the conduct of trials, appeals, and cases under Title 11 of the United States Code. In the Rulemaking process, it
usually takes two to three years for a proposal to be enacted as a rule.

The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure reviews the findings of its advisory committees, and determines whether to recommend Judicial
Conference approval of the proposed rules amendments. If the Conference approves the amendments, it transmits them to the Supreme Court. The Court considers the proposals and, if it concurs,
officially promulgates the revised rules by order before May 1, to take effect no earlier than December 1 of the same year, unless Congress enacts legislation to reject, modify, or defer the pending
rules.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Federal judges must abide by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a set of ethical principles and guidelines adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United
States. The Code of Conduct provides guidance for judges on issues of judicial integrity and independence, judicial diligence and impartiality, permissible extra-judicial activities, and the
avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance.

Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in
the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.

Many federal judges devote time to public service and educational activities. They have a distinguished history of service to the legal profession through their
writing, speaking, and teaching. This important role is recognized in the Code of Conduct, which encourages judges to engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration
of justice.

Code of Conduct For Judicial Employees

The Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees includes the ethical canons that apply to judicial employees and provides guidance on their performance of official duties
and engagement in a variety of outside activities. The judiciary has several codes of conduct, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States, that serve as primary sources of ethical
guidance for judges and judicial employees.

Judicial council (United States) - Wikipedia

Judicial councils are panels of the United States
federal courts that are charged with making "necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice" within their circuits.[1] Among their responsibilities
is judicial discipline, the formulation of circuit policy, the implementation of policy directives received from the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the annual submission of a report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on the number and nature of orders entered during the year that relate to judicial misconduct.[2] Each US judicial circuit has a judicial council, which consists of the chief judge of the circuit and an equal
number of circuit judges and district judges of the circuit.[3]

Judicial discipline

The judicial discipline process of US federal judges is initiated by the filing
of a complaint by any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is
unable to discharge all the duties of the office by reason of mental or physical disability."[4] If the chief judge of the circuit does not dismiss the complaint or conclude the proceedings, then he
or she must promptly appoint himself or herself, along with equal numbers of circuit judges and district judges, to a special committee to investigate the facts and allegations in the complaint. The
committee must conduct such investigation as it finds necessary and then expeditiously file a comprehensive written report of its investigation with the judicial council of the circuit involved. Upon
receipt of such a report, the judicial council of the circuit involved may conduct any additional investigation it deems necessary, and it may dismiss the complaint.[5]

If a judge who is the subject of a complaint holds his or her office during good behavior, action taken by the judicial council may include certifying disability of
the judge. The judicial council may also, in its discretion, refer any complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 351, along with the record of any associated proceedings and its recommendations for appropriate
action, to the Judicial Conference. The Judicial Conference may exercise its authority under the judicial discipline provisions as a conference, or through a standing committee appointed by the
Chief Justice.Read more

The Judiciary Act of 1789: "An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States." 1 Stat. 73.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, the First Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary that the Constitution had sketched only in general terms.
Acting on its constitutional authority to establish inferior courts, the Congress instituted a three-part judiciary. The Supreme Court consisted of a Chief Justice and five associate justices. In
each state and in Kentucky and Maine (then part of other states), a federal judge presided over a United States district court, which heard admiralty and maritime cases and some other minor cases.
The middle tier of the judiciary consisted of United States circuit courts, which served as the principal trial courts in the federal system and exercised limited appellate jurisdiction. Two Supreme
Court justices and the local district judge presided in the circuit courts. Under the practice known as "circuit riding," each justice was assigned to one of three geographical circuits and traveled
to the designated meeting places within the districts of that circuit.Read more

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States
shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday
of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them
bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.Read more

The Judiciary Act of 1789, officially titled "An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States," was signed into law by President George Washington on
September 24, 1789. Article III of the Constitution established a Supreme Court, but left to Congress the authority to create lower federal courts as needed. Principally authored by Senator Oliver
Ellsworth of Connecticut, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system and created the position of attorney general. Although amended throughout
the years by Congress, the basic outline of the federal court system established by the First Congress remains largely intact today.Read more

It established the federal judiciary of the United States.[3][4][5][6]
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of
any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.[7]

The existence of a separate federal judiciary had been controversial during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists had denounced the judicial power as a potential instrument of national tyranny. Indeed, of the ten amendments that eventually became the Bill of Rights, five (the fourth through the eighth) dealt primarily with judicial proceedings. Even after ratification, some opponents of a
strong judiciary urged that the federal court system be limited to a Supreme Court and perhaps local
admiralty judges. The Congress, however, decided to establish a system of federal trial courts with broader jurisdiction, thereby creating an arm for enforcement of national laws within each
state.

Legislative history

The Senate Journal records that Richard Henry Lee (AA-VA) reported the judiciary bill out of committee on June 12, 1789;[2] Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was its
chief author.[8] The bill passed the Senate 14–6 on July 17, 1789, and the House of Representatives then debated the bill in July and August 1789. The House passed an amended bill 37–16 on September
17, 1789. The Senate struck four of the House amendments and approved the remaining provisions on September 19, 1789. The House passed the Senate's final version of the bill on September 21,
1789.

President George Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 into law on September 24, 1789 and promptly submitted his nominations to fill the offices created by the
Act. Among the nominees were John Jay for Chief Justice of the United States; John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, James Wilson, and John Blair, Jr. as Associate Justices; Edmund
Randolph for Attorney General; and myriad district judges, United States Attorneys, and United States Marshals for Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia.[2][9]

Provisions of the Act

The Act set the number of Supreme Court justices at six: one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Supreme Court was given exclusive original jurisdiction
over all civil actions between states, or between a state and the United States, as well as over all suits and proceedings brought against ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel; and original,
but not exclusive, jurisdiction over all other cases in which a state was a party and any cases brought by an ambassador. The Court was given appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the federal
circuit courts as well as decisions by state courts holding invalid any statute or treaty of the United States; or holding valid any state law or practice that was challenged as being inconsistent
with the federal constitution, treaties, or laws; or rejecting any claim made by a party under a provision of the federal constitution, treaties, or laws.

The Act also created 13 judicial districts within the 11 states that had then ratified the Constitution (North Carolina and Rhode Island were added as judicial
districts in 1790, and other states as they were admitted to the Union). Each state comprised one district, except for Virginia and Massachusetts, each of which comprised two. Massachusetts was
divided into the District of Maine (which was then part of Massachusetts) and the District of Massachusetts (which covered modern-day Massachusetts). Virginia was divided into the District of
Kentucky (which was then part of Virginia) and the District of Virginia (which covered modern-day West Virginia and Virginia).

This Act established a circuit court and district court in each judicial district (except in Maine and Kentucky, where the district courts exercised much of the
jurisdiction of the circuit courts). The circuit courts, which comprised a district judge and (initially) two Supreme Court justices "riding circuit," had original jurisdiction over serious crimes
and civil cases of at least $500 involving diversity jurisdiction or the United States as plaintiff in common law and equity. The circuit courts also had appellate jurisdiction over the district
courts. The single-judge district courts had jurisdiction primarily over admiralty cases, petty crimes, and suits by the United States for at least $100. Notably, the federal trial courts had not yet
received original federal question jurisdiction.

Congress authorized all people to either represent themselves or to be represented by another person. The Act did not prohibit paying a representative to appear in
court.

Congress authorized persons who were sued by citizens of another state, in the courts of the plaintiff's home state, to remove the lawsuit to the federal circuit
court. The power of removal, and the Supreme Court's power to review state court decisions where federal law was at issue, established that the federal judicial power would be superior to that of the
states.

A clause granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus under its original
jurisdiction was declared unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison (1803) (5 U.S. 137), one of the seminal cases in American law. The Supreme Court held that
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because it purported to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. In Marbury, the Supreme
Court ruled that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and that it is the role of the judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. Thus, the Judiciary Act of
1789 was the first act of Congress to be partially invalidated by the Supreme Court.[10][11]Read more

This is a poignant question, for it casts doubt on the integrity of the government branch that should incarnate respect for the law and high ethical values. What makes
it a realistic question worth investigating is the fact that since the Judicial Conduct Act judges
are charged with the duty to discipline themselves. Anybody with a complaint against a federal judge must file it with the chief circuit judge, whose decision may be reviewed by the circuit council. But according to the official statistics, judges systematically dismissed 99.86% of the 7,977
complaints terminated in the 1oct96-30sep07 11-year period with no investigation or private or public discipline. In the last 29 years only three judges –currently 2,180 are subject to the Act- have been impeached and removed. This shows
self-exemption from discipline and coordination to disregard a duty placed by law upon judges. Actually, in the 220 years since the creation of the federal judiciary in 1789, only seven judges have been impeached and removed…on average one every 31 years!

Money provides a motive for discipline self-exemption. Indeed, the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the associate justices are allotted as circuit justices to
the several circuits. With their chief district and circuit judges they review twice a year
reports showing that those judges systematically dismiss complaints against their peers. All of them know too that bankruptcy judges dispose of tens of billions of dollars annually and do so
however they like: In
FY08, 1,043,993 new bankruptcy cases were filed while only 773 were
appealed to the circuit courts. In turn, circuit judges dispose of 75% of appeals by summary
orders, where there is mostly only one operative word, "Affirmed". Those orders have no precedential value, thus
leaving judges free to decide future cases however they want. Such freedom for inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making is further ensured by circuit judges not publishing 83.5% of opinions and orders terminating cases on the merits. So no matter how bankruptcy judges
dispose of money, their rulings are all but assured to stand; otherwise, to be reversed without explanation.

Unaccountable power and lots of money!, the two most insidious corruptors in the hands of discipline self-exempted judges. Risklessness enables and encourages judges
to engage in unlawful conduct for profit; coordination allows them to maximize the benefit. A most profitable form of coordinated judicial wrongdoing is a bankruptcy fraud scheme. The case described on page 2, DeLano, now before the Supreme Court (08-8382), provides evidence of such a scheme. Journalists can use it to
conduct a pinpointed Watergate-like Follow the money! investigation reminiscent of that led once
by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward and likely to reach similar results: The exposure of coordinated or tolerated wrongdoing by judges all the way to the judiciary’s top.

If on average it took 31 years to hold accountable people like B. Madoff, who could dispose of tens of billions of dollars, including your money, and who in addition
could exercise power over your property, liberty, and even life however they wanted with no more consequences than the reversal of their decisions, do you think that they would be tempted to treat
you and everybody else with arrogant disregard? If all your complaints and everybody else’s ended up in the wastebasket, would you expect everybody to want to know of your efforts to force those
people out of their safe haven so as to require them to treat everybody according to law or be liable to all of you? If so, you have a U.S. audience of 303 million persons waiting to know about your
efforts to hold those Madoff-like judges accountable for their conduct. Hence, I invite you to read on and then contact me to discuss how I can facilitate the proposed Follow the money! investigation. Read more

Has a Federal Judgeship Become a Safe Haven for Coordinated Wrongdoing?DrCordero-journalists.pdfAdobe Acrobat document [3.6 MB]

Every nation has a creation myth, or origin myth, which is the story people are taught of how the nation came into being. Ours says the United States began with
Columbus's so-called "discovery" of America, continued with settlement by brave Pilgrims, won its independence from England with the American Revolution, and then expanded westward until it became
the enormous, rich country you see today.

That is the origin myth. It omits three key facts about the birth and growth of the United States as a nation. Those facts demonstrate that White Supremacy is
fundamental to the existence of this country.Read

On the dayBennie Coleman lost his house, the day armed U.S. marshals came to his door and ordered him off the property, he slumped in a folding chair across the street and watched the vestiges of his 76 years hauled to
the curb...because he didn’t pay a $134 property tax
bill.

60 Minutes' Steve Kroft Talks To Carl HiaasenIn a little less than a
century, the state of Florida has been transformed from a largely uninhabited swamp to the fourth-largest state in the union. And no one has written about that transformation more successfully than
Carl Hiaasen.

Carl Hiaasen on Florida:

"The Sunshine State is a paradise of scandals teeming with drifters, deadbeats, and misfits drawn here by some dark primordial
calling like demented trout. And you'd be surprised how many of them decide to run for public office."

In 1902, 140,000 miners went on strike, wanting higher pay, shorter work hours, and better housing.....Roosevelt...use[d] the military to run the mines in the "public
interest". The mining companies...accepted the demands of the UMW...more﻿﻿

Presidential Library and Museum

Pro labor: Labor is prior to, and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much higher consideration.Abraham
Lincoln pro labor quote﻿

Todayeconomic slaveryhas many people indebt chains. Economic or debt slavery ismore efficientfor its masters than the slavery of the Old South. Debt slaves must
feed, house and clothe themselves. Thedebt slave masters, thebanks,credit card companies, and even student loan providers, all rely upon the courts and justice system for enforcement of debt. When economic slaves can’t pay back their debt, they are told to get a second job. Or a third job.

Meanwhile, when thewell-connected mastersof economic slaves get in a financial bind, and
bring our economy to the brink of collapse, they call on politicians in Washington, DC for bailouts.Bankers don’t get second
or third jobs, they get million-dollar bonuses.

Theeconomic slave mastershave access to the best lawyers, sympathetic judges, and sheriff’s
deputies ready to haul the debt slave to court, or throw him and his family out of their
home and into the street. Does anyone see a problem with thisscenario? Where is the John Brown for today’sdebt slaves?﻿

The State Department's top spokesman resigned Sunday, three days after criticizing the Pentagon for its treatment of [Manning]...P.J. Crowley, the assistant secretary of State for public affairs, told a group at [MIT]...that the Pentagon's treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning was "ridiculous and stupid and
counterproductive." His comments were made public by a blogger who attended the session.More here, and Politico, andThe Washington
Post

FORTY years ago today, The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers, a seminal moment not only for freedom of the press but also for the role of
whistle-blowers — like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the papers to expose the mishandling of the war in Vietnam — in defending our democracy.Read more﻿﻿

Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in
Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.Read
more﻿

"I really don't like the term 'PTSD,’” Department of Veterans Affairs psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Shay told PBS' "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" in 2010. "He says the diagnostic
definition of "post-traumatic stress disorder" is a fine description of certain instinctual survival skills that persist into everyday life after a person has been in mortal danger — but the
definition doesn't address the entirety of a person's injury after the trauma of war. "I view the persistence into civilian life after battle," he says, "... as the simple or primary
injury." Dr. Shay on YouTube

Dr. Shay has his own name for the thing the clinical definition of PTSD leaves out. He calls it "moral injury" — and the term is catching on with both the VA and the
Department of Defense.

Moral injury, Dr. Shay says, can happen when "there is a betrayal of what's right by someone who holds legitimate authority in a high-stakes situation."read more

The Marine Corps, the most male of the armed services, is taking its first steps toward integrating women into war-fighting units, starting with its infantry officer
school at Quantico, Va., and ground combat battalions that had once been closed to women.

Stars and Stripes exists to provide independent news and information to the U.S. military community, comprised
of active-duty, DoD civilians, contractors, and their families. Unique among the many Department of Defense authorized news outlets, only Stars and Stripes is guaranteed First Amendment privileges
that are subject to Congressional oversight.﻿ Go to the website

Our motto: "FIGHTING FOR THE TRUTH. . .EXPOSING THE CORRUPT" is our battle cry! We go after, not only pompous brasshats and as COL. David Hackworth so ably put it -
the "perfumed princes" like Gen. Wesley Clark - but Gestapo-like MP's, CID, NIS, OIS and other alphabet agency "bully boys" who ignore the Constitution of the United States and the right to Due
Process.﻿

Major Heather Penney recounts the drama in the skies after District of Columbia Air National Guard pilots scrambled to intercept incoming hostile planes. She
describes why F-16’s initially took off from Andrews Air Force Base unarmed – and what she was prepared to do to bring down a plane piloted by terrorists. And she recounts how later that day she
helped escort President Bush and Air Force One back to Andrews Air Force Base.﻿ C-Span
Interview

Information on this website is a free public service. While the information on this site deals with legal issues, it does not constitute
legal advice. If you have specific questions related to information available on this site, you are encouraged to consult an attorney who can investigate the particular circumstances of your
situation.

Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law and our reliance on information provided by outside sources, this website does not warranty or guarantee the accuracy or
availability of the content on this site or on other sites to which we link.

In no event will this website be held liable to any party for any damages arising in any way out of the availability, use, reliance on or inability to use this website
or any information provided by or through this website, or for any claim attributable to errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in, or destructive properties of any information provided by or
through, this website.

Neil J. Gillespie:
1. Does not give legal advice.2. Not a lawyer.3. Not an attorney.4. Not licensed to practice law.5. Did not go to law school.

______________________

Seven Year Anniversary - YouSue.org to NoSue.org

Seven years ago I started the Justice Network with the domain name YouSue.org. This name was chosen in the spirit of YouTube, the video-sharing website that
empowered ordinary people to produce and share video.

Through this website I have met folks from all over the country. Some of their stories are profiled here. Many have reached the conclusion that America’s justice system is broken.

The official Justice Network Internet address is now NoSue.org. This reflects the sad truth that for most Americans the justice system is broken, just a parody of justice. Reform American courts or
avoid them. Your life, health and wealth is at risk. But don’t just take my word, listen to the experts on this site.

The stories, images, and videos on this website are in the public
domain, or featured here under the fair use doctrine if copyrighted. I claim no credit for images posted on this site unless noted. If there is an image on this site that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear, E-mail with a link to the image and it will be removed.